A team of top boffins is starting to worry that humans are running out of ideas and are citing the tech industry’s inability to come up with a solution for Moore's Law as a case study.

Economic researchers from Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have just penned a bit of research with the catchy title “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?"

Economics professors Nicholas Bloom, Charles Jones, and John Van Reenen, and PhD candidate Michael Webb say that across a broad range of case studies ideas – and in particular the exponential growth they imply - "are getting harder and harder to find".

For example to maintain Moore's Law -- by which transistor density doubles every two years or so -- it now takes 18 times as many scientists as it did in the 1970s. That means each researcher's output today is 18 times less effective in terms of generating economic value than it was several decades ago.

On an annual basis, research productivity is declining at a rate of about 6.8 percent per year in the semiconductor industry. In other words, we're running out of ideas.

Exponential growth results from the large increases in research effort that offset its declining productivity, the report concludes.

Baidu China's Google is under investigation after its chief executive tested a driverless car on public roads.

Beijing's traffic police have started the investigation to see if the company has actually broken any laws, as it is not really sure.

Baidu is taking a leading role in the development of self-driving cars in China and unveiled a broad alliance for self-driving cars as it aims to get such vehicles on the road in China by 2019.

Beijing traffic police said in its statement that police support technology and innovation of autonomous driving, but it should be conducted legally, safely and scientifically. It warned any violations of the law will lead to punishment.

Baidu CEO Robin Li conducted a live video chat with participants of the firm's artificial intelligence conference on Wednesday, projecting him on a huge screen sitting in the passenger seat of a self-driving car while on Beijing roads.

The episode generated discussion online, with some questioning whether Baidu had permission to conduct the test, while others said the car appeared to violate traffic rules.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order which aims to bolster the government's cyber security and protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks.

He said the order also aimed to enhance protection of infrastructure such as the energy grid and financial sector from sophisticated attacks that officials have warned could pose a national security threat or cripple parts of the economy.

Unlike many of Trump’s moves, this had a thumbs up from security experts and industry groups, and also lays out goals to develop a more robust cyber deterrence strategy, in part by forging strong cooperation with US allies.

White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert said the order sought to build on efforts undertaken by the former Obama administration. In fact this sort of deal has Obama’s fingerprints all over it – it sounds good but acutually does not do anything because it is voluntary. Trump's move is more of an enforcement of what the previous government but is effectivtely a "plan to make a plan".

The Obama administration had encouraged the private sector to adopt the voluntary NIST framework. But it did not require government agencies to do so.

Bossert told reporters during a White House briefing: "A lot of progress was made in the last administration, but not nearly enough."

Under the changes, heads of federal agencies must use a framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assess and manage cyber risk, and prepare a report within 90 days documenting how they will implement it.

Trump, a Republican, has also asked agencies to review their federal workforce's cyber talent, an area where the government has faced a growing shortfall of qualified personnel in recent years. Bossert said Russia's hacks were not a motivation for the order, adding that "the Russians are not our only adversary on the internet".

The European Parliament voted to spruce up the EU’s cyber security laws in a move which will have many companies tearing their hare (sic) and stamping on their rabbits.

Like most EU directives, it has the somewhat sexy name the Network and Information Security Directive which is shortened to NIS. NIS could mean anything, so everyone can be safely confused, particularly when magazines like ours confuse the matter by calling it the no ignorant stuff-ups directive, which is pretty much what it is.

NIS should be up and running by August 2016 which will mean that if you have an ignorant stuff with your cyber security you will get a visit from a very angry man from Brussels who will make you wish for a referendum so you can escape the consequences.

The cunning plan is to create a harmonized approach to cybersecurity throughout the European Union. All Member States, as well as digital service providers and operators of essential services within them will have to bring about measures to achieve a level of network and information security that is coherent across the European Union.

Each country will have the same rules and people who can handle hacking. The EU will share information on cybersecurity and will improve the security and notification requirements for operators of essential services and for digital service providers.

One thing that companies will have to worry about is that if they are hacked, they will not be allowed to pretend it never happened and point vaguely to the horizon and say “oh look there is a badger with a hand-gun”. Instead they will be required to report the attack to the appropriate authorities and explain how the cock-up happened.

So far there is no mention of penalties for not telling the authorities, but suggestions that the CIO should be burnt at the stake in the company carpark do come to mind.

Like many EU directives this one manages to make itself sound as exciting and relevant as a speech by Matteo Renzi. The only difference is that some of these do actually end up making a hell of a difference, whereas Renzi is a chocolate teapot in all circumstances.

One thing the Directive will define are essential services and there will be national laws requiring operators to obey certain things connected to security. Obviously the key issue is that the essential service has to actually work and be fit for the purpose something that many operators have not quite got the hang of. Try to use a mobile phone in the countryside and you will see what I mean.

But also in areas like Energy, Transportation, Banking and Financial Markets, Health care, Drinking water supply and distribution; and Digital infrastructure will have to beef up their security act.

The British High Court has ruled that Emergency surveillance legislation introduced by the coalition government last year is illegal.

A judicial challenge by the Labour MP Tom Watson and the Conservative MP David Davis has been upheld by judges, who found that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 is "inconsistent with European Union law".

The act required internet and phone companies to keep their communications data for a year and regulates how police and intelligence agencies gain access to it.Now it seems that the government will now have to pass fresh legislation that must come into effect before the end of March.

Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Collins declared that section 1 of the act "does not lay down clear and precise rules providing for access to and use of communications data" and should be "disapplied". The judges said the order should be suspended until after 31 March 2016 "to give parliament the opportunity to put matters right".

Basically the law has two problems. It does not provide for independent court or judicial scrutiny to ensure that only data deemed "strictly necessary" is examined. It also fails to define what constitutes "serious offences" in relation to which material can be investigated.

The judges relied on an earlier decision, known as Digital Rights Ireland, by the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg, which is binding on UK courts.

Davis and Watson said that the law allowed the police and security services to spy on citizens without sufficient privacy safeguards. They said the legislation was incompatible with article eight of the European convention on human rights, the right to respect for private and family life, and articles seven and eight of the EU charter of fundamental rights, respect for private and family life and protection of personal data.

They pointed out that the law was not limited to cases involving serious crime, that individual notices of data retention were kept secret, and that no provision was made for those under obligation of professional confidentiality, in particular lawyers and journalists. Nor, they argued, were there adequate safeguards against communications data leaving the EU.

The Home Office is to appeal against the ruling, which, it warned, may result in police and investigators losing data that could save lives.

Home Office security minister, John Hayes, said: "Communications data is not just crucial in the investigation of serious crime. It is also a fundamental part of investigating other crimes which still have a severe impact, such as stalking and harassment, as well as locating missing people, including vulnerable people who have threatened to commit suicide."

Australia want to ban the teaching of encryption so that it can save the nation from all the spying that is going on.

The country has been coming out with some truly insane laws lately – including one which says that viewing topless photos of women with small breasts is paedophilia, but it is ok to look at women with big jugs.

Under the Defence Trade Controls Act – which passed into law in April, and will come into force next year educational and research activities could fall foul of Australian defence export control laws.

Since encryption is considered capable of being used by the military, the teaching of it comes under the export law.

The law defines encryption as anything over 512 bits which is the same standard set in the 1990s and now considered too weak to do anything useful with.

It will not just mean teaching encryption, programmers working on international projects such as Tor, providing free software could face up to 10 years in jail.

It is all looking surprisingly daft, and it is going to be interesting to see how it is policed. When the US tried to bring about such laws it was simply ignored and resulted in a faceoff between the government and the businesses who wanted the technology. In the end the government had to back down. However it seems that the Aussies have not learnt yet.

The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott from Judges and Lawyers once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy.

The Guardian said that that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew when they found out about Assange's appearance.

Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge.

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The conference programme was changed to include Assange's participation at short notice and without consultation.

Assange is a fugitive from justice, who bypassed the British legal system by fleeing to a foreign embassy.The Judges considered that it would be inappropriate for judges to be addressed by him.

"Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference." A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: "Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference"

The saga of THQ’s failed uDraw franchise has drawn the ire of three different law firms, who have each filed class action suits against the publisher. The grounds for the suits seem to be based in allegations that THQ violated federal securities law over the handling of the failed uDraw title franchise and the uDraw GameTablet peripheral.

These lawyers all believe that THQ made “false and misleading statements,” when briefing investors about the expected sales from the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii versions of uDraw’s titles and GameTablet. While sales for the Wii version of the uDraw tablet in early 2011 seemed good and the idea of bringing the franchise to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 seemed like an even better idea, it didn’t end up that way; $30 million in losses forced THQ to kill the entire franchise.

While all three firms are looking to recover damages for shareholders who purchased THQ stock between May 2011 and February 2012, this is a problem that THQ does not need while it continues to fight for its survival. The law firms involved in the class action suits are seeking other affected shareholders and asking them to become a part of the class action suit.

Just when we think THQ might catch a break and things might be on the uptick for the publisher, a new problem always seems to arise to drag THQ back down. We will have to see where the lawsuits lead, but it could spell some serious trouble for THQ.

President Barack Obama will veto upcoming legislation that would unwind net-neutrality rules the Federal Communications Commission adopted last year.

Telcos had been leaning on their tame puppets in the Congress to kill off the rules which require the FCC to stop them throttling clients traffic and playing favourites with internet traffic. Only Mobile broadband providers are allowed to do that.

Senate Journal Resolution 6, which is expected to go to the Senate floor perhaps as early as this week, “would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the internet free and open,” the White House said. The House passed a similar measure last spring, and Obama had threatened to veto that, too, if it landed on his desk.

The Senate measure, says Congress “disapproves” of the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which “shall have no force or effect.” Practically the change will mean that US Senators can continue to collect large sums of money in campaign funds from telcos who will not have to upgrade their networks to cope with demand.

Two ISPs from New Zealand reported that the controversial three strikes copyright law resulted in dropping traffic since it came into force, beginning with September.

ISP Orcon said that international traffic into the country dropped by about 10. ISP TelstraClear also reported a drop in traffic, although it could not confirm whether it is related to the law.

The controversial law is yet to yield lawsuits but New Zealand authorities instated fines as high as NZ$15,000 for repeat offenders. There is also an option to deprive these persons of Internet access for up to six months.

It has been said that the traffic drop is modest, especially seeing as how Swedish traffic dropped by 30 percent after a strict copyright bill was instated.